Senpai wa Kirei na Hito Datta - Oneshot

[19801980]

The perspectives of both are truly different, and it changes the reality in which they live. It's complicated when communication isn't good, creating situations that can be interpreted differently than they intended. It's understandable from the girl's point of view, but she needs tact and control in what she says. Similarly, the boy needs to know when to stop and give space to the person he likes. I hope he improves his communication and she overcomes her fear. But it's understandable; the real world isn't a joke, it's full of obsessive people (stalkers) who cross the line and drive people crazy saying it's out of love. I hope this story doesn't follow its course, that the boy sees his mistakes and overcomes them mentally and physically, and that one day he gets a chance, that they both find common ground.

 

[TrygonTBD]

The key is the panel showing he asked her out MULTIPLE TIMES and was rebuffed every time. You poor saps can stop projecting, you'd never survive the first rejection.

 

[24HourCinderella]

The last panel with the tweet is mistranslated. He does not say "I can't give up on her," but simply "I can't give up."

I think that this heavily changes how one interprets the story. The entire thing is about the different perspectives that people have on the things, and the tweets reflect that. If you just look at what he sees, it looks like he's simply waxing poetic about a lost love. If you look at just what she sees, it looks like he's unable to accept that she rejected him. I think that both of these are intentionally suggested interpretations.

But when you put them together, and look at the full set of three tweets, I think it gives a very different impression. Namely, that he was going to kill himself after being rejected. When he says he is nervous, the term he uses (in Japanese) suggests muscle tension, it's a very detached nervousness. (Of course, this isn't the only why to translate the term, but there are other ways terms he could have used that he did not.) And in his lamentation, he is talking about a "next life." To a certain extent, this could be read as a sort of suicide note, right? But in the end, he decide that he can't give up on his life.

There are different perspectives here, where neither on its own gives the whole story, and I think that the whole oneshot is meant to be the same. Neither his nor her perspective on their relationship is entirely accurate. I think that this is the point of the story, showing how different people have different views on things, and that no one is entirely correct or unbiased.

But because of how the translator translated that last line, I think that this interpretation is almost completely lost. The girl is explicitly right, now. He is just a stalker, and the alternate interpretations that were supposed to be the point of the story no longer exist. You simply have a faint illusion of them until the end.

And then it just becomes a boring "hey, did you know that STALKERS exist and they don't realize how gross they are??? Isn't that FREAKY???" with absolutely nothing interesting about it.

So you’re telling me the dorks in here arguing and insulting each other is because of shitty translation?

I’d be lying if I said I was surprised.

 

[aister]

So you’re telling me the dorks in here arguing and insulting each other is because of shitty translation?

I’d be lying if I said I was surprised.

not really a "shitty translation" or "bad translation". Just that Japanese is often vague, and thus readers usually have to make their own interpretation based on context. In this case the original translation is "I can't give up", but give up on what? The translator, based on previous text messages and the fact that he's a stalker, interpreted it as "I can't give up on her", because it is the only logical conclusion from that. Ofc Lunkli made a good observation with the "nervous" part, but that is simply another interpretation.

 

[Sunspawn]

Yeah I guess that’s true. Both of them do look more chopped in the second half’s reality check. And that makes sense with the overall theme of the guy’s romanticized delusion vs the reality of how he comes off. I guess it’s also cuz it’s a one-shot sketch so it’s not focused on in detail.

I do not think it is idealized view vs reality, both are subjective views.

 

[Lunkli]

not really a "shitty translation" or "bad translation". Just that Japanese is often vague, and thus readers usually have to make their own interpretation based on context. In this case the original translation is "I can't give up", but give up on what? The translator, based on previous text messages and the fact that he's a stalker, interpreted it as "I can't give up on her", because it is the only logical conclusion from that. Ofc Lunkli made a good observation with the "nervous" part, but that is simply another interpretation.

When the whole point of the oneshot is different individuals having different interpretations of events, so I think that you can argue that a translation that flattens the story into a single interpretation is a "bad translation." Especially when "I can't give up" would have worked perfectly fine here.

When you've just read the girl's section and then his 2nd tweet, "I can't give up [on her]" is probably still the most likely interpretation you'll make, yet it still manages to leave space for the alternative interpretation. At the most favorable, what the translator added was unnecessary, and at the least favorable, it was directly harmful to the reader's proper interpretation of the story.

There are times where a translator has to make assumptions to make their translation work, yes, but this was not one of those times.

(Also, you say "based on […] the fact that he's a stalker," but the point is that the only reason he comes across as "definitely a stalker" is because the translation is biased towards that interpretation.)

 

[24HourCinderella]

not really a "shitty translation" or "bad translation". Just that Japanese is often vague, and thus readers usually have to make their own interpretation based on context. In this case the original translation is "I can't give up", but give up on what? The translator, based on previous text messages and the fact that he's a stalker, interpreted it as "I can't give up on her", because it is the only logical conclusion from that. Ofc Lunkli made a good observation with the "nervous" part, but that is simply another interpretation.

I should have worded that a bit better.

The irony is not lost on me haha.

 

[Sunspawn]

not really a "shitty translation" or "bad translation". Just that Japanese is often vague, and thus readers usually have to make their own interpretation based on context. In this case the original translation is "I can't give up", but give up on what? The translator, based on previous text messages and the fact that he's a stalker, interpreted it as "I can't give up on her", because it is the only logical conclusion from that. Ofc Lunkli made a good observation with the "nervous" part, but that is simply another interpretation.

But that's the thing, him being a stalker is not a fact.

 

[AIt3r]

I fear the time I might do this to someone and I wouldn't even know better

 

[aister]

When the whole point of the oneshot is different individuals having different interpretations of events, so I think that you can argue that a translation that flattens the story into a single interpretation is a "bad translation." Especially when "I can't give up" would have worked perfectly fine here.

When you've just read the girl's section and then his 2nd tweet, "I can't give up [on her]" is probably still the most likely interpretation you'll make, yet it still manages to leave space for the alternative interpretation. At the most favorable, what the translator added was unnecessary, and at the least favorable, it was directly harmful to the reader's proper interpretation of the story.

There are times where a translator has to make assumptions to make their translation work, yes, but this was not one of those times.

(Also, you say "based on […] the fact that he's a stalker," but the point is that the only reason he comes across as "definitely a stalker" is because the translation is biased towards that interpretation.)

tbh I would put this as part and parcel of translation, as a translator you'll either have to pick one assumption / interpretation and go with it, or deliberately making it vague. However, going too vague can make it difficult to understand, especially for those who know little about the source language and/or materials. There are cases when it can work, but they are mostly when the vagueness was clearly deliberate. Meanwhile picking one interpretation can lead to misinterpretation and many other annoying stuffs.

Damn if you do, damn if you don't, really.

 

[Lunkli]

tbh I would put this as part and parcel of translation, as a translator you'll either have to pick one assumption / interpretation and go with it, or deliberately making it vague. However, going too vague can make it difficult to understand, especially for those who know little about the source language and/or materials. There are cases when it can work, but they are mostly when the vagueness was clearly deliberate. Meanwhile picking one interpretation can lead to misinterpretation and many other annoying stuffs.

Damn if you do, damn if you don't, really.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that I really don't think that this is a case where a more straight translation of the line, without assumptions, ("I can't give up") would end up being "too vague." Plus, I think that this is a case where the "vagueness was clearly deliberate." (The only reason it doesn't come off that way when you read it is because the translation "flattened" it.)

So while the scenarios you describe do exist, I don't think that this is one of them. (And this is what I was saying in the post you're replying to. It seems a bit odd to respond to a post by saying the exact thing said post is addressing, though, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of your reply.)

 

[aister]

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that I really don't think that this is a case where a more straight translation of the line, without assumptions, ("I can't give up") would end up being "too vague." Plus, I think that this is a case where the "vagueness was clearly deliberate." (The only reason it doesn't come off that way when you read it is because the translation "flattened" it.)

So while the scenarios you describe do exist, I don't think that this is one of them. (And this is what I was saying in the post you're replying to. It seems a bit odd to respond to a post by saying the exact thing said post is addressing, though, so maybe I'm misunderstanding the point of your reply.)

no it's not odd when it is the exact thing we disagree about.

the translator's decision to add "on her" stems from the idea that he's a stalker. You mentioned that it was only becuz the translation forced that interpretation, but for me it was not the "on her" part, it was the insistence of sending tons and tons of message, and even more when she did not reply back. Without the translator's "on her", I would still have arrived at the same conclusion anyway, even if the translator somehow managed to translate "muscle tension" the same way as you would.

also I don't agree with your conclusion that "stalkers exists and they don't know how gross they are", disregarding the possibility of hyperbole, I think it's more about "people can easily become a stalker without knowing it", especially when they interpret the situations differently (ay, very topical!). Personally that's a real fear of mine, and there was a period of my life when I was doing exactly what he did. So when I read this, I can see myself in the male MC, not in the "he's not in the wrong" kind of way, but more like "I can kinda understand why he did what he did" kind of way.

 

[dogmeister238]

no it's not odd when it is the exact thing we disagree about.

the translator's decision to add "on her" stems from the idea that he's a stalker. You mentioned that it was only becuz the translation forced that interpretation, but for me it was not the "on her" part, it was the insistence of sending tons and tons of message, and even more when she did not reply back. Without the translator's "on her", I would still have arrived at the same conclusion anyway, even if the translator somehow managed to translate "muscle tension" the same way as you would.

also I don't agree with your conclusion that "stalkers exists and they don't know how gross they are", disregarding the possibility of hyperbole, I think it's more about "people can easily become a stalker without knowing it", especially when they interpret the situations differently (ay, very topical!). Personally that's a real fear of mine, and there was a period of my life when I was doing exactly what he did. So when I read this, I can see myself in the male MC, not in the "he's not in the wrong" kind of way, but more like "I can kinda understand why he did what he did" kind of way.

Yeah there’s not much interpretation there, in regard to the stalking. In both perspectives, it’s made clear that he sends tons of messages. Now whether it’s stalking comes down to its reception, and I think that’s where some of the commenters are trying to draw nuance with, but it’s entirely the reception of the person receiving the messages. So unless she’s literally hallucinating the texts, it’s most definitely stalking, even if it wasn’t intentional. And even without the tweet, there’s the other tweet where he says he wouldn’t change his entrance exam, which he explicitly states in the first half to be because of the girl and wanting to get closer to her.

 

[dogmeister238]

I do not think it is idealized view vs reality, both are subjective views.

See that’s what I thought at first, but when you mentioned she also looked more chopped, it made me realize that the art was more grounded in the second half, which doesn’t feel like it’s properly utilizing symmetry to convey dual perspective.

I did recently check the remake, and it seems the intention was just to portray a duality, so with that in mind, I have some criticisms about the one-shot.

I get that the author intentionally made it ambiguous to make the reader’s interpretation of which is reality a reflection of the reader’s subconscious or something like that, but that only works if the two halves are portrayed symmetrically.

However, the art in the second half is objectively more grounded. There aren’t any symbolic or romanticized backgrounds, like the symbolic stars used for expression in the first half. And while you could say that the girl has a more pessimistic perspective, without communicating that point more, it’s indistinguishable from portraying the girl as more grounded and in-touch with reality.

I think the author could’ve benefitted from further emphasizing a symmetry when juxtaposing the two, especially since there’s no risk of being too unsubtle in a one-shot as short as this. Maybe moments of pessimism outside of dealing with the guy or something like that.

 

[Lunkli]

no it's not odd when it is the exact thing we disagree about.

the translator's decision to add "on her" stems from the idea that he's a stalker. You mentioned that it was only becuz the translation forced that interpretation, but for me it was not the "on her" part, it was the insistence of sending tons and tons of message, and even more when she did not reply back. Without the translator's "on her", I would still have arrived at the same conclusion anyway, even if the translator somehow managed to translate "muscle tension" the same way as you would.

also I don't agree with your conclusion that "stalkers exists and they don't know how gross they are", disregarding the possibility of hyperbole, I think it's more about "people can easily become a stalker without knowing it", especially when they interpret the situations differently (ay, very topical!). Personally that's a real fear of mine, and there was a period of my life when I was doing exactly what he did. So when I read this, I can see myself in the male MC, not in the "he's not in the wrong" kind of way, but more like "I can kinda understand why he did what he did" kind of way.

Yeah, see, I keep repeating this, but "I can't give up" still gives the impression that he's a stalker. The "on her" is completely unnecessary in conveying that interpretation. You see him rant about how he still loves her, then he says he can't give up. Most people's immediately thought is going to be that he's a stalker regardless of whether he specified "on her."

I'm not saying that the translation should not have conveyed the idea that he might be a stalker. The point is that the story is meant to have two different interpretations co-existing, but this is something that the translation flattened.

Like, you mention the texting. What counts as "texting too much" is totally subjective, you know, right? You text people more when you're closer with them, and you text people less when you're not. "Texting too much" is specifically when people text you more frequently than fits your relationship with them. And if someone you were close with suddenly stopped replying to your messages, wouldn't you be worried? So while he could be overly clingy, he could also have just misread their relationship. (Very easy considering she mentions that she felt an obligation to respond to every single message he sent outside of the stints where she didn't respond at all.)

However, the art in the second half is objectively more grounded.

People also bring up their appearances, treating her perspective's version of them as more "grounded," but it's ridiculous to choose what you think is the truth solely based on what seems more normal. Imagine if two people read a manga, and one person said it was average and the other said that it was one of their favorites. Would you automatically assume that it was average just because that was more "grounded" than it being amazing? Plus, that's ignoring the fact that her perspective literally draws everything more vague and with less detail. (Especially on the guy.) That seems less reliable to me, personally.

There's also the obvious bias in her perspective in that in their last meeting she still acts like he was threatening her despite the fact that she literally admits that he was "apologizing," while also basically admitting that she was completely ignoring him while he did so. (It "sounded like a[n] […] apology." That's the sorta thing you say when you barely knew what they were saying. Also, in regards to that being an apology, you know that means that he never confessed to her, which means that she never rejected him, right?)

She's also basically infantilizing him from the beginning. She describes what she does as "taking proper care of him," as if he's a child. From the beginning, she's not thinking of him as a proper human being and she does not acknowledge that he's anything but a charity case for her, almost a toy. Coming from the perspective of someone with autism, this is very reminiscent of how autistic people are often treated. (Also, don't you think that being treated like this might have contributed to his low self esteem that made him view himself as someone "too immature" to be "worthy of dating her?" You think maybe that idea might have come from the fact that she treated him like that?)

So, yeah, up until the end, an interpretation where the guy isn't a stalker, but rather someone being strung along by a girl that think she's better than him, and who dehumanizes him until he nearly commits suicide, is just as valid an interpretation as a more surface-level one where he is a stalker. And keep in mind, I'm not saying that there is absolutely no way that he's not a stalker. Just that there are multiple possibilities, as a way of illustrating the differences in interpretation that can be caused by differences in perspective.

But then, all that goes away with the translation of the final line. Now, rather than just being one interpretation, "stalker" is the only interpretation, when it didn't even need to be so. With a difference of literally only two words, both interpretations would have been able to flourish.

Anyways, I think that, once a more proper interpretation of the final line is taken into account, this is a beautiful depiction of the discrimination autistic people (who, of course, in Japan are "people that are inherently bad at communicating for mysterious reasons") are faced with by neurotypical people. And I think that the way some of you are reacting to this manga shows just how accurate it is. You refuse to accept "poor social skills" as anything but a personal failing.

Also, don't act like "people can easily become a stalker without knowing it" isn't just a prettier wording "stalkers exist and they don't know how gross they are." It's disingenuous. You're saying the same thing. (PEOPLE = STALKER = DO NOT KNOW = SAD)

 

[aister]

Yeah, see, I keep repeating this, but "I can't give up" still gives the impression that he's a stalker. The "on her" is completely unnecessary in conveying that interpretation. You see him rant about how he still loves her, then he says he can't give up. Most people's immediately thought is going to be that he's a stalker regardless of whether he specified "on her."

I'm not saying that the translation should not have conveyed the idea that he might be a stalker. The point is that the story is meant to have two different interpretations co-existing, but this is something that the translation flattened.

I still don't agree with you, for me, the "on her" was at most unnecessary. I have already come to the conclusion that he's a stalker before that line, that I would have filled "on her" in the gap myself if the translator hadn't.

Like, you mention the texting. What counts as "texting too much" is totally subjective, you know, right?

The difference between texting your friends, and stalker-ish texting, is what the other side feels about it. In this case, she was annoyed, and scared, by the amount of text he sends. That alone is enough to say he's a stalker.

So while he could be overly clingy, he could also have just misread their relationship. (Very easy considering she mentions that she felt an obligation to respond to every single message he sent outside of the stints where she didn't respond at all.)

Agree, as I said, he misinterpret the relationship and her reactions. That's why I said he "became a stalker without knowing it"

There's also the obvious bias in her perspective in that in their last meeting she still acts like he was threatening her despite the fact that she literally admits that he was "apologizing," while also basically admitting that she was completely ignoring him while he did so. (It "sounded like a[n] […] apology." That's the sorta thing you say when you barely knew what they were saying. Also, in regards to that being an apology, you know that means that he never confessed to her, which means that she never rejected him, right?)

we don't know exactly what he said, but if he was not confessing to her (at least in his perspective) and got rejected, there would be no reason for him to post "this pain is so profound".

She's also basically infantilizing him from the beginning. She describes what she does as "taking proper care of him," as if he's a child. From the beginning, she's not thinking of him as a proper human being and she does not acknowledge that he's anything but a charity case for her, almost a toy. Coming from the perspective of someone with autism, this is very reminiscent of how autistic people are often treated.

While I do agree that he's certainly on the spectrum, I don't think she treated him like a toy. She even said she saw him as a "slightly eccentric guy who was deeply dedicated to his research". In fact, I believe she was simply being kind-hearted, and wanted good things for him, or at least that's her intention. If she treated him as a toy, the moment she got scared, she would have blocked him. She already had her friends who protected her, so there was no need for her to continue with "her toy", wasn't there?

(Also, don't you think that being treated like this might have contributed to his low self esteem that made him view himself as someone "too immature" to be "worthy of dating her?" You think maybe that idea might have come from the fact that she treated him like that?)

One thing for sure that's not what he thought about how she had been treating him. His low self-esteem came from somewhere else, not from the way she's been treating him. From the little details that we were given, she had never directly belittled him, or treated him badly, in fact he was very happy with the way she treated him.

So, yeah, up until the end, an interpretation where the guy isn't a stalker, but rather someone being strung along by a girl that think she's better than him, and who dehumanizes him until he nearly commits suicide, is just as valid an interpretation as a more surface-level one where he is a stalker. And keep in mind, I'm not saying that there is absolutely no way that he's not a stalker. Just that there are multiple possibilities, as a way of illustrating the differences in interpretation that can be caused by differences in perspective.

The guy is someone who made the girl uncomfortable with his texting, while there was absolutely no sign that he was unhappy with the way she treated him, let alone distraught to the point of suicidal. This interpretation has no grounding, especially the second part.

Anyways, I think that, once a more proper interpretation of the final line is taken into account, this is a beautiful depiction of the discrimination autistic people (who, of course, in Japan are "people that are inherently bad at communicating for mysterious reasons") are faced with by neurotypical people. And I think that the way some of you are reacting to this manga shows just how accurate it is. You refuse to accept "poor social skills" as anything but a personal failing.

Again, your interpretation is wrong. So this whole section is also incorrect.

Also, don't act like "people can easily become a stalker without knowing it" isn't just a prettier wording "stalkers exist and they don't know how gross they are." It's disingenuous. You're saying the same thing. (PEOPLE = STALKER = DO NOT KNOW = SAD)

No it is not the same. In your version, you mention gross, and look at the whole situation on a perspective of a victim, and focus on the negative feeling. My version looks at the situation on the perspective of the unknowing stalker, and focus on the idea that your actions can make someone else uncomfortable, without you knowing about it. As someone who is also autistic, it is both a real fear of mine, and is something that actually happened.

 

[Lunkli]

[…]

You're missing the point of everything I'm saying. Thinking about it, I don't really care that much about this argument, so have a nice day.

 

[Goodbyefrankenstein]

People trying to blame the girl for not being straight forward is so funny to me.

She literally rejects him every time he messages/invites her to things.

For those who are self deprecating and worried you'll be mistaken as a creepy dude like this - don't worry because you're already mindful. Just leave people alone if theyre not meeting you halfway or not interested in hanging out with you, that's all there is to it.